https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190533 A prior CESTAT decision cannot be treated as authority on an issue that was only assumed on an admitted premise and not actually contested or decided. On that basis, Patel Engineering Ltd. was not binding on whether MMRDA qualifies as a road construction corporation under Condition No. 40(a) of Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. Shreeji Construction alone contained the substantive determination on MMRDA's character, and it concluded, after examining its statutory origin, structure and functions, that MMRDA is not such a corporation. Because Patel Engineering Ltd. did not decide the point, there was no real conflict between the two decisions and a Larger Bench reference was unwarranted; the reference was declined and the appeal was remitted to the appropriate Bench. en-us Thu, 12 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 18 Feb 2017 12:14:58 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190533 A prior CESTAT decision cannot be treated as authority on an issue that was only assumed on an admitted premise and not actually contested or decided. On that basis, Patel Engineering Ltd. was not binding on whether MMRDA qualifies as a road construction corporation under Condition No. 40(a) of Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. Shreeji Construction alone contained the substantive determination on MMRDA's character, and it concluded, after examining its statutory origin, structure and functions, that MMRDA is not such a corporation. Because Patel Engineering Ltd. did not decide the point, there was no real conflict between the two decisions and a Larger Bench reference was unwarranted; the reference was declined and the appeal was remitted to the appropriate Bench. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 12 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190533